KC should have went for 2

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

C'mon, why not take the shot at it? it's not like we could have stopped their offense.

 

Just do something weird to get 2.

 

Have Holmes 'hold' the ball and then run it in

 

Have the QB hand the ball to Holmes

 

Have the QB run the friggin option and toss it to Holmes

 

Hand the ball to John Tait

 

We should have won it there, not lost it in OT.

 

Damn.

[Guest DawnBTVS]

Too bad they wanted to play it safe...*points and laughs while raising Pats banner*

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

I think you are stupid/silly/insane if you go for two late in the game in a situation where an extra point ties it.

[Guest Kingpk]

I think you are stupid/silly/insane if you go for two late in the game in a situation where an extra point ties it.

Or your name is Steve Spurrier.

 

Come on, you just KNOW he would do something like that.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Too big a risk when you stil have playoff hopes. If the Chiefs where 6-8, than why not.

[Guest DrTom]

I think you are stupid/silly/insane if you go for two late in the game in a situation where an extra point ties it.

I concur. Put the sure point on the board and take your chances in overtime. I guess there's something incredibly daring and risky about going for 2 to win late, but there are times that "daring and risky" are synonymous with "really stupid." Any coach whose team was perceived as missing the playoffs because of a loss like that would probably get canned.

 

The only time I think it might even have a whisker's chance of being advisable if you've lost a couple prominent defensive players to injury during the game. Even in that case, it's a much better bet to go into OT and play it out. You could win the coinflip and march down the field for the score, instead of getting stuffed on a foolish two-point try and looking like idiots before the nation. Ballsy idiots, but idiots nonetheless.

[Guest Kingpk]

You know, the guys on CBS were talking about the whole OT situation after the Pats game. Jim Nance suggested they do what college does with both teams having a shot from their opponent's 20.

 

Thoughts?

[Guest danielisthor]

You know, the guys on CBS were talking about the whole OT situation after the Pats game. Jim Nance suggested they do what college does with both teams having a shot from their opponent's 20.

 

Thoughts?

NFL would never go for it. NFL hates any change to its already "perfect" system.

 

Being a Dolphin Fan, i would of loved to see KC go for 2 and win it.

 

BTW - Who the hell can get excited with the Bungles-Falcons tonight on ESPN? Good god.

[Guest phoenixrising]

I think you are stupid/silly/insane if you go for two late in the game in a situation where an extra point ties it.

Or your name is Steve Spurrier.

 

Come on, you just KNOW he would do something like that.

In Spurrier's perfect world, he would empty his roster of kickers and punters, sign QB's in place so he can sub after every incompletion, go for two on every conversion and go for it on 4th and whatever 100% of the time.

[Guest El Satanico]

In Spurrier's perfect world, he would empty his roster of kickers and punters, sign QB's in place so he can sub after every incompletion, go for two on every conversion and go for it on 4th and whatever 100% of the time.

Well minus the qb subbing stuff wouldn't that be the perfect world for all football fans too? I don't know about you, but i don't get a thrill out of watching the kicking game.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

You know, the guys on CBS were talking about the whole OT situation after the Pats game. Jim Nance suggested they do what college does with both teams having a shot from their opponent's 20.

 

Thoughts?

I absolutely HATE the College Football system they have now.

 

I could tolerate it if they didn't hand the ball off at the 20.

 

Kick the ball off, give them one drive, give the other team a drive. Repeat if needed.

[Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly]

It's always easy to say what someone should have done after the game is over. The Chiefs took the sure point, which was a reasonable thing to do but maybe they should have gone for two. Priest Holmes was getting the job done on the ground, but they didn't really have a lot of passing yards. Hell, Tony Gonzalez didn't have a reception until he made that big grab on the final drive. Tom Brady had A LOT of passing yards and ther was no reaso why he wouldn't have continued accumulating them in OT. They also were on the road and some people have the rule, "win on the road, tie at home." You could say they should have went for two with no time on the clock and won (they probably could have caught them off guard witha trick play), but had the Chiefs won in OT, we wouldn't be discussing this anyway.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Would it have been too much of a giveaway to the Patriots if we sent Holmes in to 'hold the kick' but then let him run it in for two?

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

KC did the right thing in kicking it? BTW: Didn't the Pats try to go for 2 earlier in the game and missed it?

 

"BTW - Who the hell can get excited with the Bungles-Falcons tonight on ESPN? Good god."

 

I was looking forward to it -- living just outside the Cincy area I can't wait for all the nasty talk radio calls that are going to be clogging the airwaves Monday. People were actually thinking before the season began that the Bengals were a playoff contender. (I had them going somewhere around 7-9...)

[Guest El Satanico]

had the Chiefs won in OT, we wouldn't be discussing this anyway.

And had they gone for 2 and didn't make it there would be even more bitching.